Poll: Piracy is legal

[Heronblade]

Yes, because more often than not, said company probably doesn't deserve the money. My latest purchase i wished i pirated was the shitshow known as Hitman: Absolution.

But if you don't pay them do YOU deserve the PRODUCT?

Stupid question, not really answerable.

What makes it stupid? What makes it unanswerable?

Apparently he thinks everyone is entitled to copyrighted content by default, in spite of the vast amount of effort its creator puts into it.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**yawn**

Copyright infringement isn't theft.

Most piracy is no more amoral than watching Hulu or Youtube.

Edit: Sorry, needed to clarity something there. Pronouns are a *****.

**yawn**

Anyway... on a more important matter....

/人◕‿‿◕人\

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I don't think pirates are bad people, but that doesn't mean piracy isn't a morally wrong thing. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with it? Only a few providers are at risk of getting caught, everyone who doesn't pirate does it because they think it's morally right, not because they're afraid of getting punished.

Honestly, you see nothing morally wrong with piracy?

I think it's morally wrong on the same level that jaywalking is morally wrong. As in, not very.

The problem with talking about piracy as a moral question is that it opens up a whole bag of moral quandaries that you don't really need to address. Let's say copyright infringement is morally wrong in the basis that you are deriving the benefit of a creator's work without paying for it. Under that framework, I can think of a number of equally wrong but socially acceptable activities, such as;

- borrowing a book from a friend
- buying a used video game
- accepting a hand-me-down iPhone from a sibling
- reading a comic book or a magazine in the store
- watching a DVD of the Avengers at a friend's house
- listening to music played on your friend's music player
- watching a clip of a comedian's stand-up routine on Youtube

You can keep going. Under the moral framework for copyright infringement, literally any scenario where you obtain the benefit of a work - reading it, watching it, listening to it - without paying money to the artist is morally wrong. That's unworkable. There isn't a single human being in the first world who hasn't done one of those items on the list at some point in their lives. They're all about as malicious as eating the last slice of cake, or telling your girlfriend she doesn't look fat in those jeans.

Add that to the fact that, as I said, if you take a moral view of copyright law it's morally wrong to pay anyone other than the creator. How much of the money made from music and films goes to the creators and how much goes to the lobbyists and industry powerbrokers behind the MPAA and the RIAA? How much of the money made by sales of Batman comics goes to Bill Finger? If I buy a copy of the Hobbit, does the deceased Tolkien get the money? His descendants get the money - people who are passively deriving a benefit from their grandfather's achievements.

Once you apply a classical moral framework to copyright law, the whole structure collapses. If the point of copyright is to benefit the author, why does it persist past the author's death? Why is it possible to sell your copyright in a work?

So how do you answer those questions? You don't. Copyright infringement isn't illegal because it's morally wrong - it's illegal because the law says so. This might seem unjust, but it's what happens when powerful lobbyists use a shallow appeal to morality to justify expanding the scope and length of copyright far past the point of absurdity. Better to think of it as a legal question concerning legal rights and governed by legal principles. That way, at least it makes sense.

When you get down to it, the only time anyone is going to care about copyright infringement is when you're being sued for it. And when you get put in front of a judge, talking about morality isn't going to get you very far. The judge is sitting in front of a big book called The Law, and he wants to find out if what you did was illegal, not if it was wrong.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

if ou dont belive the company is deserving of your money then dont get the product....stealing is childish and petty

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT =/= THEFT

HULK SMASH

 

[Entitled]

Nope.

I think the acquisition and distribution of information is cool and stuff.

creators need money for their work....

Neither of these comments contradict the other one.

Distribution of information is cool, yet creators need money for their work.

Conclusion: We need to find a way that lets creators get payed for their work, without limiting the distribution of information.

 

[Kargathia]

Downloading that cd because you don't feel like buying it legitimately is technically still illegal, though you are unlikely to get into any trouble for it unless you start distributing it on a large scale or something like that.

Incorrect. Merely downloading copyrighted work is not illegal, as long as it's for personal use only. Exceptions are software and games, which are legal to download, but illegal to use.

This all is on the verge of being a technicality though, as the most common route to pirate material is p2p sharing, which automatically uploads - a definitely illegal activity.

I'm still curious about this whole soul-searching for the morality of piracy though. Why are we so caring about whether it's -wrong-? Even if it's wrong, why do we care so much? It's not like those precious souls of ours are spotless.
Hell, I know I personally already tick the checkboxes for having lied, stolen, cheated, destroyed/defaced property, slandered, and quite a few other wrong activities - and I'm generally considered rule-abiding to the point of being boring.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Snip

Just to say...

Perfectly encapsulates my feeling on the matter. <3

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Simply put if someone creates somthing they have the right to it.

And if that something is a piece of information, than what is "it" that they have a right to? for example, you say:

If someone labors to produce something, any form of art/entertainment media, then for one they should hold control over it until they willingly forfeit it, as surely as any physical property they labored to produce, and any who wish to enjoy their creation should be subject to their standards.

So, what if their standards include ignoring Fair Use? If Warner Brothers says that anyone who wishes to enjoy ANY content from the Harry Potter movies must pay for it, does that give them a right to persecute people for posting screenshots, videos, or quotes?

If EA says that you only have a right to play Dead Space 3 yourself, but not to resell it, or to borrow it to your friends, does that give them a right to write their own EULA and ban all of this?

If G.R.R. Martin says that his Song of Ice and Fire series should be own by his heirs and their heirs and then their heirs, for 300 years, should h be allowed to decide that?


Where are the limits of "it" that they should have control over?

And another important point is that pirates, by attempting to enjoy somthing, contribute to its destruction. If piracy is held as both morally and legally acceptable than those who would attempt to create these things for profit, the very things that the escapist is built around discussion of, would cease to do so.

Wrong, people stopping to pay for things would lead to their destruction.

Piracy is not the opposite of paying. People are able to set a fixed entertainment budget every month on supporting the best things that they want to see more of as much as they can afford, and then having fun with some more accessible stuff.

Also, publishers are able to shift to models that don't require direct payment for digital content, see music publishing and the increased reliance on concerts.

Of course things need to be within reason. Fair Use is a useful compromise in determining what exactly counts as violating a author's right to his work. A quote from a book is not a book itself. And yes piracy is the opposite of paying for things. It is getting things...without paying for them. That is, in esscence, its definition. And if you want to have a set budget for entertainment, simply stay within that budget. You don't get to just take things that other people made because you feel entitled to them. And publishers shouldn't have to switch models to recover from people taking things that DO NOT BELONG TO THEM. You have zero, absolutely no, right to somthing some one else produces. The fact that the industry is being forced to accomadate people pirating things is shameful. You have repeatedly stated that piracy and theft are not comparable. Fine, please explain to me how me stealing a CD is diffrent from me pirating it online. Lets say I take a CD from a store, and download it and such. I fail entirely to see how this counts as seperate from piracy in any way. For the sake of argument lets say I stole it from the publishers themselves rather than a store, mabey a warehouse or factory, and also that I left 20 cents to pay for the actual creation of the CD. Now please, explain to me, logically, how this is in any way diffrent from pirating the CD online. I would hold that, morally speaking, it is exactly the same. Also, another thing I would like to point out, is that media=/=information. A game, show, book ect is comprised of information but to call it information is ignoring both its purpose and its creation. it is a work designed to entertain by means of the delivery of information.

 

[Altorin]

the funny thing about money is that at least in a healthy economy, it all gets spent. That's really the most important thing. The distribution of that spending might be a little askew in an age that demands instant gratification for as little money as possible, But gamers buy games. Even gamers who pirate things.

 

[Entitled]

You don't get to just take things that other people made because you feel entitled to them. And publishers shouldn't have to switch models to recover from people taking things that DO NOT BELONG TO THEM. You have zero, absolutely no, right to somthing some one else produces.

That would be more convincing if it wouldn't be a followup to this:

Of course things need to be within reason. Fair Use is a useful compromise in determining what exactly counts as violating a author's right to his work.

So the IP holders rights need to be compromised, so that I am allowed to things such as Fair Use, to Used Sales, and to Public Domain.

Yet at the same time, I have "zero, absolutely no, right to somthing some one else produces".

So what if I morally feel that I have a right to a 96 year old novel, that just left copyright last year? Do I still have zero, absolutely no right to it?

And what if I decide to pirate a 94 years old book, still in the claim of it's publisher?

What could make one of these acts so obviously immoral, and the other one moral?

please explain to me how me stealing a CD is diffrent from me pirating it online. Lets say I take a CD from a store, and download it and such. I fail entirely to see how this counts as seperate from piracy in any way. For the sake of argument lets say I stole it from the publishers themselves rather than a store, mabey a warehouse or factory, and also that I left 20 cents to pay for the actual creation of the CD. Now please, explain to me, logically, how this is in any way diffrent from pirating the CD online. I would hold that, morally speaking, it is exactly the same.

In the first example, you took away someone else's property for yourseelf. Leaving 20 cents there, doesn't make it any better, if the owner didn't agree to give the object to you to begin with. No to mention that the act involves breaking and entering to a territory owned by someone else.
The 20 cent part shows your misunderstanding of the concept of property. Theft isn't just bad because it makes you financially poorer, but because it involves violating one's belongings, taking them away from them.

In the piracy example, you didn't take away anything, you made a new string of data from yourself, from the data available on public websites. The only thing that is being harmed, is the IP holder's sense of entitlement to dictate to you what kind of sounds you are allowed to listen to in your own room, with your own computer.

Also, another thing I would like to point out, is that media=/=information. A game, show, book ect is comprised of information but to call it information is ignoring both its purpose and its creation. it is a work designed to entertain by means of the delivery of information.

"media" is the name of the deliverance system, and "information" is the data that is being delivered.

If you download an ebook, you are downloading a piece of information, presented through a certain media (file format (PDF), narrative format(novel), transmission device (Kindle) etc.)

 

[Vault101]

Neither of these comments contradict the other one.

Distribution of information is cool, yet creators need money for their work.

Conclusion: We need to find a way that lets creators get payed for their work, without limiting the distribution of information.

but the product is easyly accesible....you just need to pay for it

your right, we should get rid of used games :3

a used game is a physical product, a digital copy is not

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT =/= THEFT

HULK SMASH

so theres absolutly nothing wrong with it then?

its still imoral

 

[Something Amyss]

Downloading films/games/music for your own use when normally you would need to pay is robbery, and robbery is illegal. I think they should crack down on this even harder than on actual robbery, as this is easier.

Not sure if you realize that we're not talking about piracy where you sail a ship up to a store and fire at them until they surrender their data. That would be fairly easy to counter with fitting every store near a body of water with cannons of its own... possibly fencing lessons for the cashiers. Then make the whole thing watertight, put a sail on the roof and off into glorious battle.

"When I got into management, I never thought I'd have to walk the plank."

Also, since when is the fact that it's easier a reason for harder punishment? Are you saying that taking a pen from a bank should be punished harder than taking all the money out of the ATM since the fact that nobody was there to guard that pen made it more unfair?

Yeah, that's kind of absurd. The damage is less than theft. While it's a crime, it should probably be prportional.

Hell yes, it's not piracy if it's legal. As long as there's some sort of tax on blank media/computers that goes directly back to content creators, then unrestricted sharing is way preferable to our current system, because of all the free culture & research that would be openly available.

That seems wildly unfeasible, though. Like, it seems like a major clusterhump just to attempt.

I'd still rather buy my media, though.

 

[drummond13]

I'm just curious, do you also think borrowing a dvd from a friend, or playing a friend's copy of Gears of War with him at his house (a copy you did not pay for) or buying a game used is also theft?

No I do not. I've heard the same argument given against my view as someone attempts to put me in a box. I do see them as different though.

Borrowing means that I am losing access to my game while giving it to someone else (piracy is copying that game so there are now multiple access points and giving it to someone else. The important part is there is still only one existing copy). By borrowing, there is still one copy out there that is bought and paid for and it is a basic consumer right of ours to do what we want with out property.

Not trying to put you in a box at all. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around your perspective. I honestly don't see how temporarily depriving myself of the game while my friend borrows it doesn't also violate your views on someone enjoying someone else's work for free. What if this friend is my roommate and I don't lose access to the game at all?

Same with buying used games. As you said, it's a basic consumer right to do what we want with things we pay for. This would include selling it to Gamestop used, who then sells it to a third party with the original developer not getting any money from their hard work. Legal or not, the end result is the same. Do you have the same outrage at this?

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Well, it is, assuming that you live in one of the countries [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland] such as Switzerland or The Netherlands that either already legalized it, or at least decriminalized it.

For the rest of you, the question is this: If piracy (that is, individual, non-commercial sharing of otherwise copyrighted data) would be legal in your country, would that change your feelings in any way about whether or not the people using it are thiefs/assholes/self-entitled freeloaders respectively?

Theft is one of the things that if made legal, it doesn't make it morally right. Theft is never morally right.

The world really is going downhill if countries are legalizing theft(no matter how you paint it, piracy is theft).

Switzerland and the Netherlands are now on my list of stupid countries.

So, making piracy legal wouldn't change my mind. I would still say to pirates, "Hey dumb-asses, get jobs and pay for what you want. There is no excuse for what you do."

To the "making a statement" consumer pirates, "You too dumb-asses, just because a company doesn't put out a demo, doesn't give you the right to download a game without paying so that you can test it to see if you want to buy. Reviews and videos are the only option for you to find out if you want it. If it still sucks when you buy it, tough. That's life, deal with it."

Each individual decides what is morally okay for him and what isn't.

If it was legal, I think most people would also consider it morally okay- same as what's happening with weed currently.

Yes, but there is a difference. The legalization of weed just lets people smoke weed. The legalization piracy basically lets people steal and read/watch/play things without paying.

It is basically a kick in the balls to anybody trying to make money off of entertainment.

I would be pissed if the US made piracy legal. I'm a writer and I plan to publish some of my works when they are complete.

After that, if I found out somebody was hosting copies of my books online for people to download and was able to meet that person, I'd punch that person in the face. Well, probably not, but I sue him/her into the ground so he/she tasted dirt.

As I said far above, there are some things that even if they became legal, it wouldn't make them morally right, even if some people started thinking it is morally right.

Murder, theft, etc, etc, are things that will always be morally wrong. The day that such things aren't considered immoral, that is the day the world/human race destroys itself.

Piracy is theft. It really is as simple as that.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Vault101]

[snip.)

this is what pisses me off

you are putting the burden on ME and other people who pay to ensure that our media/entertainment keeps getting made

make a product=sell product thats how our society works

its just about getting free shit

its ALWAYS about getting free shit

 

[Entitled]

Neither of these comments contradict the other one.

Distribution of information is cool, yet creators need money for their work.

Conclusion: We need to find a way that lets creators get payed for their work, without limiting the distribution of information.

but the product is easyly accesible....you just need to pay for it

Not always, some of it really is inacccessible.

And besides, limited distribution of information will only lead to limited awareness, to industries where hype and advertising are the ones making a profit, instead of pleased customers, and to creativity itself being limited because of the clusterfuck that is modern copyright.

I don't think that the music industry was harmed by moving from album sales profits to concert profits. In fact, it felped to increase awareness of smaller indie bands, while only harming mainstream superstars and their publishers by earning them somehow smaller amounts of money piles.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

if ou dont belive the company is deserving of your money then dont get the product....stealing is childish and petty

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT =/= THEFT

HULK SMASH

If people download a pirated game, they are taking and playing without paying, something that doesn't belong to them.

Taking something without paying, taking something that isn't yours, is theft.

Piracy = Theft.

I just made Hulk impotent.

 

[Vault101]

If it was legal, I think most people would also consider it morally okay- same as what's happening with weed currently.

how the fuck is it ok?

I make a game called chicken hunters...I put effort into it, I put the game up for sale......everyone loves the game...and majority of people pirate the game

I have no money no chicken hunters 2...great going guys!!!

or scenario 2

I make chicken hunters 2 under publisher FC (fat cats), chicken hunters 2 is a game with a sizable budget....people love chicken hunters 2 but alot of people pirate

FC have alot of money....but they look at the stats and the "disapointing" returns for chicken hunters 2 and shut down my studio

GREAT GOING GUYS!!!

people who advocate piracy seem to lack basic logic

 

[Entitled]

its just about getting free shit

its ALWAYS about getting free shit

Exactly. "Information wants to be free" is bullshit.

Then again, information doesn't want to be locked away, either. There is no natural law about how publishers always deserved to legally force us to buy copies or GTFO. That idea only exists since the law says so.

Obviously, there are a whole bunch of people who think that they are entitled to free shit (where "shit" means copies of information). There are a whole bunch of artists who think that they are entitled to make me pay. And there are a bunch of publishers who feel entitled to force the artist to give up their copyright to them, and then they force me to pay.

There are people who feel entitled to Fair Use. There are publishers who feel entitled to limit Fair Use. There is a public that feels entitled to Public Domain works. Then there are those who want copyright lenght to be longer.

There are those who want to write mods, and fanfics, and hand-crafted merch, and those who try to shut them down.


Everybody wants to be more profitable, to get more free shit, and generally to have more rights than they have right now.

 

[Entitled]

If it was legal, I think most people would also consider it morally okay- same as what's happening with weed currently.

how the fuck is it ok?

I make a game called chicken hunters...I put effort into it, I put the game up for sale......everyone loves the game...and majority of people pirate the game

I have no money no chicken hunters 2...great going guys!!!

The majority of people are already pirating anyways, they have been for decades, and the industry keeps going.